Jamestown vs Plymouth essays

Jamestown vs Plymouth essays Despite the fact that the original British settlements in Virginia at Jamestown (1607) and New England at Plymouth (1620) were founded in the same relative time period, the two colonies differed greatly economically, politically and socially. Economically, Jamestown was originally wholly dependant on money from the crown and later became dependant on a single cash crop, tobacco, while New England became self sufficient by farming all of their own food. Socially, New England colonists were a close-knit religious group of Puritans that came to escape religious persecution in England. The settlers of Jamestown were upper-class nobles who went to America in search of gold. Politically, Jamestown was set up with a more centralized government and had direct rule from the king. Plymouth had a very decentralized government made by its very own social contract and had no direct rule by the king. Although both settlements were initiated by the same joint-stock company, the London Company of Virginia, the two colonies were extremely different economically. With the help of local Indians, the pilgrims were able to become economically self-sufficient. Farmers were able to produce their own food, many of whom produced excess which they used as trading power to get furs and other goods from the natives. Jamestown, however, was almost completely dependent on money from the British crown for materials. Later, with the help from John Rolfe, Jamestown was able to produce something of value to support itself: tobacco. Tobacco was able to command high prices in Europe, and Jamestown became dependent on a single cash crop. The two settlements also differed socially. The pilgrims came from a society of Puritans who already knew each other. This allowed these settlers to more easily create a close-knit, strong community. Because of the religious persecution these people received in England, the Pilgrims mostly came to America for religio...

australias involvement in viet essays

australias involvement in viet essays Australia had reasons for wanting to join the Vietnam War, quite apart from considerations of South Vietnamese sovereignty. It was considered necessary to maintain good relations with our alliance partners the United) and constituted a critical step in maintaining a defense. Initially, Australia provided financial support to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), and when widespread conflict became more widespread, Australia provided military advisers. The United States, who had been keen "observers" of the conflict, soon committed itself to military intervention and Australia wished to show her support. The problem was, that the South Vietnamese government was not so convinced of the utility of Australia's presence. How was Australia to solve this dilemma? The official and propagated account of Australia's decision to enter the Vietnam War holds that Australia, at the behest of the South Vietnamese government, and together with the noble American nation entered (reluctantly) into war, to safeguard the world from communist peril. Vietnam constituted Australia's longest involvement in a war, and the first confrontation in which involvement was not always viewed as a simple logical process. The Australian troop force in Vietnam build up steadily in the years 1965-1967. Even before this Australia deployed military advisers, and sent aid to the South Vietnamese government. The actual Australian contingent was minor in comparison to force sizes of other allied countries. Additionally it was predominantly located in an area which was perceived as being of critical strategic importance for the overall war. Australia's presence was concentrated around a small area of Vietnam, Phuoc Tuy province. Here, the majority of Australian regular and national service troops were located, together with New Zealand troops, thus forming the integrated ANZAC force. Conflict in the area reached proportions which were not initially envisaged by the Australi...